Request for reconsideration of a protest decision is denied. The protester argued that GAO had not considered one of the arguments raised in its protest concerning ISO certification. GAO found, however, that the protester had never raised an argument about ISO certification. The protester also complained that GAO had erred in dismissing its supplemental protest as untimely. GAO had found that the supplemental argument should have been raised in the initial protest. The protester argued it had touched upon the supplemental argument in the initial protest. GAO rejected this, finding that the argument had not been in the initial protest. Finally, the protester argued that GAO had not addressed all its protest arguments. But GAO noted that while it considered every argument, it was not required to address every argument.
Analytical Solutions by Kline filed a protest with GAO, challenging the terms of a solicitation to provide information technology services to the Social Security Administration. GAO denied the protest. Analytical Solutions requested that GAO reconsider its decision due to various errors of law.
In its protest, Analytical Solutions had challenged a CMMi certification requirement as too restrictive. GAO had found that the requirement was not restrictive because it could be satisfied with either CMMi certification or ISO certification. Analytical Solutions argued that its protest also challenged the ISO certification requirement and that GAO had failed to consider that argument.
GAO found this argument meritless. The protest did not contain any meaningful discussion of ISO certification. While the protest contained three references to ISO, those references did nothing more than restate questions asked by offerors about ISO and did not reflect any specific arguments or concerns with ISO certification.
Analytical Solutions also argued that GAO had erred in dismissing its supplemental protest as untimely. In its supplemental protest, Analytical Solutions had alleged that the agency was improperly bundling requirements that it had previously received separately. GAO found this argument because it was essentially a challenged to the solicitation that had been raised after SSA had submitted its agency report. Analytical Solutions argued, however, that it raised the bundling issue in its initial protest.
GAO disagreed, finding that the references to “bundling” in the initial protest concerned an argument on restrictive past performance criteria. Those references had nothing to do with the consolidation argument raised in the supplemental protest.
Finally, Analytical Solutions complained that the GAO had addressed all its protest arguments. GAO simply noted that while it did not address every issue raised in Analytical Solution’s protest, it fully considered them and found that none provided a basis to sustain.
Analytical Solutions is represented by Eric S. Crusius, Mitchell A. Bashur, and Amy L. Fuentes of Holland & Knight LLP. The agency is represented by Uri Ko, Ellen Rothschild, and Alice M. Somers of the Social Security Administration. GAO attorneys Paula A. Williams and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
